DRAFTVERSION APRIL 22, 2019 Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX61

THE digest2 NEO CLASSIFICATION CODE

SONIA KEYS,1 PETER VEREŠ,1 MATTHEW J.PAYNE,1 MATTHEW J.HOLMAN,1 ROBERT JEDICKE,2 GARETH V. WILLIAMS,1 TIM SPAHR,3 DAVID J.ASHER ,4 AND CARL HERGENROTHER5

1Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, 60 Garden St., MS 51, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA 2Institute for Astronomy, 2680 Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA 3NEO Sciences, LLC, 1308 Applebriar Lane, Marlborough, MA 01752, USA 4Armagh Observatory and Planetarium, College Hill, Armagh, BT61 9DG, UK 5Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

Submitted to PASP, Day Month Year

ABSTRACT We describe the digest2 software package, a fast, short-arc orbit classifier for small Solar System bodies. The digest2 algorithm has been serving the community for more than 13 years. The code provides a score, D2, which represents a pseudo-probability that a tracklet belongs to a given Solar System orbit type. digest2 is primarily used as a classifier for Near-Earth Object (NEO) candidates, to identify those to be prioritized for follow-up observation. We describe the historical development of digest2 and demonstrate its use on real and synthetic data. We find that digest2 can accurately and precisely distinguish NEOs from non- NEOs. At the time of detection, 14% of NEO tracklets and 98.5% of non-NEOs tracklets have D2 below the critical value of D2 = 65. 94% of our simulated NEOs achieved the maximum D2 = 100 and 99.6% of NEOs achieved D2 ≥ 65 at least once during the simulated 10-year timeframe. We demonstrate that D2 varies as a function of time, rate of motion, magnitude and sky-plane location, and show that NEOs tend to have lower D2 at low Solar elongations close to the ecliptic. We use our findings to recommend future development directions for the digest2 code.

Keywords: short-arc orbit determination, asteroids, Near-Earth Object, Minor Planet Center arXiv:1904.09188v1 [astro-ph.EP] 19 Apr 2019

Corresponding author: Peter Vereš [email protected] 2 KEYSETAL.

1. INTRODUCTION (NEOCP3). These objects are prioritized by the NEO follow- Near-Earth Objects (NEOs), defined as any small Solar up community for additional observations. System body having perihelion less than 1.3au, are of sig- In this manuscript we describe the digest2 code. The code nificant interest for a number of reasons. These include plan- as implemented has been used by the community for a num- etary defense, spacecraft missions, commercial development, ber of years. Our primary goal is to describe and document and investigations into the origin and evolution of the Solar the major elements of digest2 and the practical consequences System. The NEO discovery rate has risen rapidly in recent of its design and implementation. Although we highlight decades, driven by the 1998 Congressional mandate to dis- possible areas of improvement, these are left for future work. cover 90% of NEOs larger than 1 km (the Spaceguard Sur- 2. METHODOLOGY vey Morrison 1992), and the subsequent 2005 Congressional mandate to discover 90% of NEOs larger than 140 m (George The observations from a short-arc tracklet directly con- ˙ E. Brown, Jr. NEO Survey Act 1). strain the position, (α,δ), and motion, (α,˙ δ), of the asteroid Solar System objects are typically identified through their in the sky, but the topocentric radial-distance, ρ, and radial- apparent motion in a series of images spanning minutes to velocity, ρ˙, between the asteroid and the observer are essen- hours. Given such a sequence of exposures, it is straight- tially unconstrained. This is the fundamental challenge of forward to identify “tracklets” (Kubica et al. 2007), sets of orbit determination. detections that are consistent with an object with a fixed rate An assumed ρ allows a heliocentric position to be derived of motion. A related term is an arc, which may contain any (see AppendixA), and with the assumption of a topocentric number of tracklets, possibly from different observatories. ρ˙, a heliocentric velocity can also be calculated. Milani et al. The time span from first to last observation is termed the arc- (2004) refer to the “admissible region” as being the set of length. (ρ,ρ˙) for which the resultant orbit is heliocentrically bound It is straightforward to determine whether a tracklet rep- (elliptical w.r.t. the Sun). resents a known object with a well defined orbit. In that Many authors have addressed the problem of short-arc or- case, the observations coincide with the predicted positions bit determination and constraint (e.g. Väisälä 1939; Mars- for the known object. Otherwise, the tracklet likely repre- den 1985; Bowell 1989; Bowell et al. 1990; Marsden 1991; sents a newly discovered object. It is then of interest to deter- Tholen & Whiteley 2000; Milani et al. 2004; Milani & mine what type of orbit that object has, and in particular, if Kneževic´ 2005; Oszkiewicz et al. 2009; Spoto et al. 2018, it is a new NEO. Given limited telescopic resources, it is not and discussions therein). Of particular relevance to digest2, possible to re-observe all objects to immediately determine in the late 1980s and early 1990s, R. H. McNaught of the their orbits. It is therefore essential to identify which objects Siding Spring Observatory undertook an extensive effort to are more likely to be NEOs and prioritize those for further determine allowable orbital element ranges and class-specific observation. object probabilities based on two observations and a magni- Although a tracklet does not uniquely determine an orbit, tude (PANGLOSS McNaught 1999). The method proceeded characteristic sky-plane motion can be used to infer a possi- by stepping through a range of possible topocentric distances ble orbit type (e.g. Jedicke 1996). The tool currently used for and angles (between the velocity vector and the line of sight) this is digest22. The digest2 code uses only a single motion which were consistent with the observations and bound to the vector, derived from a tracklet or short arc, to identify all pos- sun. PANGLOSS used a population model to assign weights sible elliptical orbits consistent with that motion. This set of to different orbit classes. The PANGLOSS code provided the possible orbits is then divided into disjoint orbital categories. foundation for the digest2 code described in this manuscript. Given a population model that represents the number of solar We review two related methods for addressing the problem system objects of each type, we can estimate the likelihood of short-arc orbits. The first concerns the technique referred that the tracklet represent a member of each category. to as “statistical ranging” (Virtanen et al. 2001), in which With a suitable threshold, digest2 can serve as an NEO two observations are selected from the tracklet, thus fixing (α,α,δ,˙ δ˙), and then topocentric ranges at each of the epochs binary classifier. Tracklets with high digest2 scores, D2, are posted on the Near-Earth Object Confirmation Page of the two observations are randomly chosen and a corre- sponding orbit computed from the admissible region that is compatible with the observational tracklet data. This process 1 Section 321 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law No. is repeated over many random topocentric distances to gen- 109-155) erate a set of compatible orbits. 2 There is no known history of a digest1; this is not version 2 of a pro- gram. Also nothing is known about the origin or meaning of the name. The program name is simply digest2. 3 http://www.minorplanetcenter.net/iau/NEO/ toconfirm_tabular.html THE digest2 NEOCLASSIFICATION CODE 3

The second method refers to “systematic ranging”. This method was introduced by Chesley(2005) and is described in detail in Farnocchia et al.(2015). In this method, a sys- tematic raster over (ρ,ρ˙) space is performed, generating an orbit for each and comparing to all tracklet observations. The RMS of the fit residuals for each (ρ,ρ˙) point indicates the quality of the fit, and χ2 probabilities can be used to derive confidence regions in (ρ,ρ˙) space. While digest2 is not directly derived from either Virtanen et al.(2001) or Chesley(2005) (and the P ANGLOSS ranging code, from which digest2 is derived, predates both), the di- gest2 code uses the same fundamental approach that is com- mon to both statistical and systematic ranging techniques: sets of bound heliocentric orbits are generated that all satisfy the short-arc observations.

2.1. Historical Development of digest2 As described above, the early origins of the digest2 were the PANGLOSS code developed by R. McNaught. The cur- rent version of digest2 evolved from a FORTRAN 77 code (“223.f”) employed in Jedicke(1996), and then further Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the construction of two-element developed by C. Hergenrother and T. Spahr from the PAN- tracklets within digest2 for short-arcs (< 3hrs: top-left), space- GLOSS code of R. McNaught. It accepted observation files in based data (top-right), and long-arcs (≥ 3hrs: bottom). Detections the MPC’s 80-character format4, encoded the vector solution are plotted as red circles along their underlying path (gray dotted described in section 3.2, employed the parabolic limit de- line); The two-element tracklets constructed by digest2 are the blue scribed in appendixA, and used the model population look- squares and dashed lines. A detailed description of the algorithm up described in section 3.3. used to construct the two-element tracklets is provided in the text of Since the first publication,digest2 has undergone many in- §3.1. cremental improvements. In Appendix B.1, we provide a de- tailed description of the key changes to the digest2. and statistical observational error. Figure1 demonstrates a number of cases handled by the code. 3. COMPUTATIONAL ELEMENTS OF digest2 Short-Arcs: Panel A illustrates relatively short arcs, with In this section we describe the main components of the cur- all observations from the same site. At the top, both obser- rent version of digest2 and explain the algorithmic choices in vations in the two-observation-arc are used as-is. For the its development. We emphasize that we are providing a fac- second arc, a more typical tracklet with four observations, tual report of how the code was implemented, and hence how a great circle linear motion vector is fit to the observations. the code has been operating for more than a decade. Sig- Endpoints are synthesized near the 17th and 83rd percentile nificant improvements are possible in future versions, but the of the observations in the arc, instead of near the extreme focus of this paper is documenting the development, features, endpoints. This is not to account for positional uncertainty, and performance of the existing code. but rather is an approximate method to account for cases in We discuss digest2’s key algorithmic steps in Sections 3.1 which excessive measurement error or poor astrometry can to 3.5, and then summarize them in Section 3.6 and Algo- significantly shift the endpoint, and thus change the shape rithm Table1. of the admissible region.5. For the third arc, synthesizing endpoints near the 17th and 83rd percentile yields synthetic 3.1. Endpoint Synthesis observations within the tracklet. The fourth arc shows sig- The algorithm starts by reading tracklet and population- nificant curvature, with the synthesized linear motion vector model data from input files. Since version 11 (June 2011), exhibiting significant residuals w.r.t all observations. digest2 considers all observations in the arc and synthesizes end points to define a motion vector, with the aim of improv- 5 The justification for the particular choice of 17th and 83rd percentiles ing the robustness of digest2 against both bad observations is unknown to the surviving authors. Moreover, we emphasize that future versions of the digest2 code will improve on the handling of measurement uncertainty and tracklet construction. 4 https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/info/ObsFormat.html 4 KEYSETAL.

Space-based observations6: As illustrated in Panel B, points are varied by adding ±0.5σ to either (or both) of the space-based observations often show strong curvature on the RA and Dec values of the initial end points, producing a to- sky due to parallax as the spacecraft orbits the earth. In this tal of 9 variant tracklets: the initial one, plus the additional 8 case interpolation on a great circle fit is not meaningful. If variations illustrated in Figure2. any observations in an arc are space-based, two actual obser- The astrometric uncertainties used for σ can be defined vations are selected, near the 17th and 83rd percentile. per observatory code in the digest2 configuration file. The Longer-Arcs: Panel C shows cases of longer arcs and/or current MPC settings of uncertainties and keywords are pre- arcs with multiple observing sites. Here, two sub-arcs are sented in Table6 of AppendixD. selected where each sub-arc is < 3 hours and all detections While this approach has the effect of producing a range of in a sub-arc are from the same site. These two sub-arcs are different motion vectors, it should be emphasized that this then separately reduced to yield the motion vector end points. method of dealing with astrometric uncertainty is not ideal In the top arc of Panel C, sub-arcs can be selected to use all from a statistical viewpoint, omitting occasional astrometry available observations. A separate great circle linear motion that is worse than our statistics, or significantly better due fit is then applied to each sub-arc and observations are syn- to improved astrometric catalog or measurement. Improve- thesized, again near the 17th and 83rd percentiles. The sec- ments expected in the near future will employ astrometric ond arc illustrates how the conditions that sub-arcs be < 3 uncertainties directly reported with the submitted astrometry hours and all from the same site may leave a number of ob- on an individual detection basis to handle observational un- servations unused. The third arc shows a case where the 83rd certainty. percentile is outside of the end sub-arc. In this case no point is synthesized outside the sub-arc, rather the first observation 3.2. Orbit Solution of the sub-arc is used as-is. Given a nominated observer-object distance, D, and a nom- ~ 3.1.1. Dithering and Observational Uncertainty inated angle, α, between the observer-object unit vector, d, and the object velocity vector, a specific orbit can be com- puted (AppendixA). The H-magnitude can be calculated for each orbit using the geocentric vector ∆~ = Dd~ and the helio- centric distance of the object, ~r, to get the object phase angle Φ, which, with the apparent magnitude V, gives H in the IAU adopted H-G magnitude system Bowell et al.(1989).

3.3. Population Model used by digest2 The digest2 code requires a population model against which tracklet-derived-orbits can be compared, representing the number of solar system objects in a variety of dynamical categories. digest2 uses two different population models. The first is a full population model including all objects down to a given diameter. The second is the difference be- tween the full population model and the known orbit catalog, Figure 2. Schematic illustration of the construction of “dithered” representing the undiscovered population. end-points to a two-point tracklet constructed as per Figure1, Sec- tion 3.1.1. The nominal end-points (large blue squares) are varied 3.3.1. Full Population Model within the uncertainties, σ, of the input detections by adding ±0.5σ digest2 uses the term “raw” to indicate when the full pop- to one-or-both of the RA and Dec values of the end points, produc- ulation model is used to score tracklet-derived orbits. The ing 8 additional deterministic variations (small gray symbols). We refer the reader to the main text of Section 3.1.1 for a brief discus- current version of digest2 uses the Pan-STARRS Synthetic sion of the short-comings of this approach. Solar System Model (S3M) of Grav et al.(2011), consisting of over 14 million simulated Keplerian orbits. digest2 bins S3M into 15 different orbit classes (Table8 in Once a two-point tracklet has been constructed as de- AppendixD). The model uses bins in perihelion ( q), eccen- scribed in Section 3.1, the end-points are varied within the tricity (e), inclination (i) and absolute magnitude (H). Bin- uncertainties, σ, of the input detections. The nominal end- ning in perihelion, rather than semi-major axis a, enables a bin cut at q = 1.3 to directly distinguish NEO orbits from 6 https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/info/ non-NEO orbits. The binning is non-uniform and provides SatelliteObs.html enhanced resolution in higher density regions of parameter THE digest2 NEOCLASSIFICATION CODE 5 Desig. RMS Int NEO N22 N18 Other Possibilities NE00030 0.15 100 100 36 0 NE00199 0.56 98 98 17 0 (MC 2) (JFC 1) NE00269 0.42 24 23 4 0 (MC 7) (Hun 3) (Pho 15) (MB1 <1) (Han <1) (MB2 41) (MB3 5) (JFC 1)

Figure 3. Sample output from the digest2 code showing scores for 3 tracklets. Columns from left: Designation of a tracklet, root-mean-square (RMS) of great-circle-fit of the tracklet in arcseconds, and D2 for the orbit classes (Int, NEO, N22, N18, Other Possibilities) described in Table8 of AppendixD. space, while simultaneously reducing the number of empty A binned population model divided into bins for “raw” and and near-empty bins in low density regions. The bin bound- “no id” populations is distributed with the digest2 source aries and counts for the full population are depicted in Fig- code and updated when a new version of digest2 code is ures 19 in AppendixE. The binned population and model available. reduction is done by the MUK program7. 3.4. Searching for bins

3.3.2. Unknown Population Given an orbit calculated as described in Section 3.2, the next step is to assign the orbit to the appropriate (q,e,i,H) digest2 also allows a comparison of tracklet-derived or- population-bin. The algorithm searches over a range of dis- bits against the likely population of “undiscovered” or “un- tances, D, and angles, α, within the admissible region (Sec- known” objects, referred to as the “no ID” model. An ar- tion2). There are a number of possible approaches to select- gument can be made that “unknown” objects can be more ing a set of points for evaluation within this region. digest2 accurately scored against a population model that excludes does not use a χ2 (or RMS) approach, nor does it generate a objects typical of those that are already known. fixed grid of points, but instead utilizes a binary search ap- Given a binned version of a full population model (as de- proach (See AppendixC). scribed in Section 3.3.1), the desired “unknown” popula- tion model is constructed by reducing bin populations by 3.5. Class Score the number of cataloged objects with well determined or- Given the set of bins identified in Section 3.4, a “class bits. Given a metric for orbit quality, an orbit is selected score” is calculated over those bins. These scores are cal- from a catalog of known objects and the orbit is graded as culated for any of the classes listed in Section 3.3 that are to whether it would likely be identified. If the catalog or- selected by the user at run-time as being of interest. bit is identifiable, the count of objects in the appropriate bin For a specified orbit class of interest, a sum Σclass is accu- within the full, modelled population can then be reduced. Re- mulated based on the modeled population consistent with the peating this procedure for all well-known objects reduces the orbit class. Another sum, Σother, is accumulated for the mod- full population model to the “unknown” population model. eled population consistent with orbits not of the class. The This model reduction and bin selection is performed by the class score Sc is given by above-mentioned program MUK. The known catalog currently used by MUK is astorb.dat8 Σclass Sc = 100 (1) Bowell et al.(1994), Bowell(2018). Its orbit quality metric is Σclass + Σother astorb field 24 (Muinonen & Bowell 1993), corresponding Therefore, the digest2 score, D , ranges from 0 to 100 in to the peak ephemeris uncertainty over a ten year period. The 2 any given class. The example in Figure3 demonstrates a Peak ephemeris uncertainty is observationally motivated, of- range of D values for three tracklets of different objects, af- fers a direct comparison regarding how secure the object is 2 ter execution of the compiled digest2 program9 with its sup- against getting lost, and is the most generic way to compress plied sample input files10. the information of the covariance matrix into a scalar. MUK The output generated by digest2 lists scores for tracklets on considers such an orbit to be determined well enough that individual rows. The number of displayed columns as well its identification with a tracklet would be trivial. For each of as the configuration of digest2 can be controlled using key- these orbits, the corresponding model bin is decremented by words in the configuration file (See Table7 of AppendixD). one, unless the bin population reaches zero. The first object (NE00030) appears to be an NEO and an “In- teresting” object based on D2 = 100. However, its scores for 7 MUK is available from https://bitbucket.org/mpcdev/ d2model/src/master/muk.c 8 astorb.dat, and is available from ftp://ftp.lowell.edu/ 9 https://bitbucket.org/mpcdev/digest2/overview pub/elgb/astorb.dat.gz 10 https://bitbucket.org/mpcdev/digest2/downloads/ 6 KEYSETAL.

being a large NEO (N22, N18) are rather low, so this object Table 1. Individual NEOs (top) and non-NEOs (bottom) selected is therefore most likely a small NEO with H > 22. The sec- for detailed study in Section 4.1. ond object (NE00199) also has large NEO scores, however, q e i its RMS is large, suggesting either astrometry with large er- Designation H PHA Orbit type [au] − [deg] rors or deviation from a great circle motion due to a close encounter with the Earth. The last two columns, in the paren- (198752) 19.8 No NEO Amor 1.21 0.52 1.75 theses, suggest that there is a small probability that this ob- 2015 DP155 21.5 Yes NEO Amor 1.02 0.22 5.38 ject is a Mars Crosser or a Jupiter Family Comet. The third 2012 HN40 20.4 No NEO Apollo 0.89 0.67 14.39 object (NE00269) also has a large RMS and its NEO scores 2012 HZ33 20.4 Yes NEO Apollo 0.95 0.21 23.88 are low (D2 < 25). Based on other orbit classes computed 2006 EW1 16.0 No non-NEO MB 2.80 0.12 6.03 for NE00269, this object is most likely a Central Main-Belt 2000 ED68 16.4 No non-NEO MB 1.89 0.40 25.40 asteroid. 2013 BX45 17.6 No non-NEO MC 1.56 0.40 29.51 3.6. Algorithmic Summary 2017 BG123 19.5 No non-NEO HUN 1.60 0.13 23.29 In Algorithm Table1, we summarize the key algorithmic 2014 QC158 15.9 No non-NEO HIL 3.12 0.22 14.19 steps employed in digest2, These are: (1) the reduction of the 2012 RW6 13.1 No non-NEO TRO 4.87 0.06 16.24 tracklet observations to a single motion vector (Line4), (2) the sampling of the distance, D, and velocity angle, α (Lines 7-11), (3) the generation of orbital elements and population score indicates a quasi-likelihood that the input arc represents comparison (Lines 13-14), leading to (4) the accumulation of an object of the class of interest. a score (Lines 15-16). 4. digest2 SCORE ANALYSIS Algorithm 1: digest2 essential algorithm The primary use of the digest2 code has been as a binary See AppendixA andC for more details. 11 classifier for NEOs, in which a tracklet’s NEO D2 score 12 1 Open observation file is compared to a critical value, D2,crit Tracklets with D2 > 2 Load binned population model into memory D2,crit are considered by the MPC to be eligible for submis- 3 arc designations for each of identical in file do sion to the Near-Earth Object Confirmation Page (NEOCP). 4 Select or derive two positions from arc The rationale and history for selecting a given score is de- 5 Compute a magnitude V from arc 6 Initialize score accumulators scribed later at the end of Section 4.3. Submitting newly dis- 7 for a number of nominated distances D do covered tracklets to the NEOCP allows them to be prioritized 8 Compute distance dependent vectors {v~D} for follow-up by the community, allowing their arcs to be ex- 9 Compute angle limits α1,α2 from {v~D} tended, and a more precise orbit to be determined for them, 10 Compute H from V and {v~D} ultimately determining whether the object is indeed an NEO. 11 for nominated angles α in range α1,α2 do The value of D2,crit used to decide whether a tracklet is 12 Compute state vector at α admissible to the NEOCP has varied since the introduction 13 Compute orbital elements from state vector 14 Look-up bin population for elements of digest2. This has changed both the number of tracklets 15 Accumulate values needed for scoring admitted to the NEOCP and the purity of the tracklets (what 16 Compute score from accumulated values fraction are NEOs) on the NEOCP. The detailed effects of 17 Output arc results, minimally designation and score these changes are discussed at length in Section 4.3.

4.1. Application of digest2 to Individual Objects As described in Section 3.2, digest2 generates a large num- We provide illustrative examples of the digest2 score for ber of different observer-object distances (D) and angles (α) a number of representative objects from the MPC database. between the observer-object unit vector and the object ve- The objects and their orbital classifications are listed in Table locity vector, each pair of (D,α) yielding different keplerian 1. orbital elements. The distance, D, and angle α, are selected Because the observing cadence for object tracklets sub- in order to construct a bound heliocentric orbit. mitted to the MPC is rather sparse, we generated daily For each candidate orbit, the elements index a bin (Sec- ephemerides and synthesized tracklets for our sample over a tion 3.4) of a population model of the Solar System (Sec- tion 3.3). Indexed bin populations then represent populations of modeled objects consistent with the input arc. For a dy- 11 Unless otherwise indicated, in the remainder of this work we will un- namic class of interest, such as NEOs, population sums can derstand D2 to refer to the NEO "no id" (NID) digest2 score. 12 be accumulated that allow score calculation (Section 3.5). A Since 2012, D2,crit = 65. THE digest2 NEOCLASSIFICATION CODE 7

Table 2. Description of population data sets used in this work. The MPCD,11,MPCD,17 and MPCA,17 data sets contain real observations, the Sim set contains synthetic observations based on real orbits, while LSST and Granvik contain synthetic observations based on synthetic orbits.

Data Set Type Timespan Tracklets Objects

MPCD,11 Real (All) 1-Year 14,003 14,003

MPCD,17 Real (All) 1-Year 18,715 18,715

MPCA,17 Real (All) 1-Month 374,406 143,983 Sim Synthetic (NEO) 10-Years 3.8 × 106 16,230 LSST Synthetic (NEO, MB) 9-days 14.3 × 106 1.4 × 106 Granvik Synthetic (NEO) 1-Year 618,951 14,458

which their score is < 65. The non-NEOs in Figure4 have a wide range of behaviors. Some, such as the MBA “2006 EW1” always display low digest2 scores. In contrast, some objects such as the Mars-crosser “2013 BX45” spend sizable fractions of the time with a score > 65. Because a critical digest2 score D2,crit = 65 is used by the MPC to post objects to the NEOCP and prioritize them for observational follow-up, it follows from Figure4 that, (a) an NEO could fall below D2,crit for some fraction of the time it is visible, and hence “miss-out” on being sent to the NEOCP, and (b) non-NEOs can gain scores higher than D2,crit , and Figure 4. Top: Examples of the variation in digest2 score as a hence be “unnecessarily” sent to the NEOCP. In the follow- function of time for the NEOs in Table1. Bottom: Examples of ing sections we quantify the frequency of such scenarios. the variation in digest2 score as a function of time for the non-NEO In Figure5 we plot D2 as a function of ecliptic coordinates objects in Table1. Thick lines indicate when the objects were practi- (with respect to opposition) and the rate of motion. The plot- cably observable. All plotted NEOs have a maximum digest2 score ted positions are for the time of visibility depicted in Fig- ∼ 100, but all exhibit periods during which their scores are signif- ure4. It is clear from the middle plot of Figure5 that the icantly lower, and all spend some time during which the score is value of the digest2 score is strongly dependent on the rate- < 65. The sample non-NEOs display a wide range of behaviors. Some, such as the MBA “2006 EW1” always display low digest2 of-motion and latitude. While this generally serves to dis- scores. In contrast, some objects such as the Mars-crosser “2013 tinguish NEOs from non-NEOs, we can see that some of the BX45” spend sizable fractions of the time with a score > 65. In non-NEOs spend some fraction of their time with relatively the remainder of Section4 we examine the primary drivers of this high rates-of-motion and/or high-ecliptic latitudes. This in- variation. evitably leads to confusion between NEO and non-NEO, as evidenced by the high D2 scores for some of the non-NEOs. period of 10 years. For each object, the orbit was numerically Application of to Populations integrated and an ephemeris was generated for two epochs 4.2. digest2 per night, separated by 20 minutes. The pair of points within 4.2.1. Data Sets and Simulations a night is then transformed into Geocentric (RA,Dec) coor- To investigate the behaviour of D2 for a large population, dinates, and used to define a tracklet for each night. Each we computed D2 for the data sets listed in Table2. The tracklet is then used as an input to the digest2 code, and a data sets MPCD,11 and MPCD,17 contain all discovery track- score generated. lets13 submitted to the MPC in 2011 and 2017 respectively, All of the NEOs plotted in Figure4 have a maximum di- thus containing tracklets of all types of orbit. We use both gest2 score ∼ 100, but all exhibit periods during which their scores are significantly lower, and all spend some time during 13 A discovery tracklet is the first reported tracklet of an object 8 KEYSETAL.

Figure 5. Colormaps of the variation in digest2 score as a function of opposition-centered ecliptic latitude, longitude and the rate of motion during the times of visibility of the individual objects from Figure4. The large diameter circles are the NEOs, and the small points are the non-NEOs. It is clear from the center plot that the value of the NEO digest2 score is strongly dependent on the rate-of-motion and latitude.

MPCD,11 and MPCD,17 data sets because in 2011 the MPC used D2,Crit = 50 for posting to the NEOCP, whereas in 2017 the MPC used D2,Crit = 65, allowing us insight into the effects of different value of D2,Crit used in the past. MPCA,17 contains a month’s worth of all tracklets submit- ted to the MPC, containing all types of submitted orbit. We selected January 2017 as a time when Jupiter’s Trojans were observable near opposition. We only selected tracklets fainter than 18 magnitude, to work in the regime of newly discov- ered objects. The Sim data set was obtained by integrating the known catalog of NEOs (as of July 2018) with H > 18 for 10 years, starting on January 1, 2008 and deriving a daily ephemeris from the Geocenter, providing a two-detection tracklet span- ning 1-hour for D2 computation. To simulate accessibility for ground-based telescopes, we constrained the maximum V-band magnitude to 22.5 and distance from opposition to be within ±100 degrees in longitude and ±70 degrees in lat- itude. 90% of objects in the catalog were observable within the Sim data. The LSST data set contains tracklets from 9-nights worth of a simulated LSST survey (Vereš & Chesley 2017). The data set contains NEOs from Granvik et al.(2018) and Main- Belt asteroids from Grav et al.(2011). The Granvik data set contains NEO tracklets for the H > 18 objects in the synthetic population of Granvik et al.(2018) that we propagated for one calendar year and then used Figure 6. Top: Distribution of digest2 scores for 1-Month’s worth the resulting ephemerides to compute the value of D2 on a of all tracklets submitted to the MPC (MPCA,17). Bottom: Cumula- nightly basis. We employed the same observability crite- tive version of the top plot. The majority of NEOs have D2 ∼ 100, ria for the limiting V-band magnitude and the opposition- while Main-Belt objects tend to have D2 ≈ 0. Trojans are particu- centered ecliptic coordinates as we used on the Sim data set. larly numerous for D2 ⊂ (55 − 90).

4.2.2. Distribution of digest2 Scores ject types. We plot histograms of the D2 score at the top,

The overall distribution of scores for the MPCA,17 data set and fractional cumulative distributions below. Most Main- can be seen in Figure6. This data set contains various ob- Belt asteroids have D2 ∼ 0, and most NEOs have D2 ∼ 100. THE digest2 NEOCLASSIFICATION CODE 9

However, the long tail of NEOs with low D2 is interesting any given time. However, we note that within the data set, because those with D2 < D2,Crit are not recognized as NEOs some NEOs are visible for only a single one night, while and will not be placed onto the NEOCP for follow-up. In the others are visible for many months. MPCA,17 data set, 14% (98.5%) of NEO (non-NEO) track- 4.2.4. Detailed Analysis of digest2 scores for NEOs lets had D2 < D2,Crit . Figure6 shows that Trojans and Mars- Crossers are objects that “mimic NEOs”, as these two popu- We use the Sim data set to examine the frequency with lations of object have the highest fraction with D2 > D2,Crit . which NEOs and their subclasses (Amor, Apollo and Aten 14 15 Trojans dominate numerically for 55 < D2 < 90, while Mars- type orbits, PHAs and low-MOID (<0.05 AU) NEOs) Crossers contribute equally across the entire range of D2 val- have tracklets with low values of D2 . ues.

4.2.3. Comparison of NEO digest2 Scores Across Data Sets

Figure 7. Cumulative distribution of digest2 scores for all NEO data sets. The blue (MPCA,17) line is reproduced from Figure6. While most NEO tracklets have D2 = 100 at any given time, the distribution of smaller D2 differs between data sets. In the unbiased Sim sample about 30% of NEO tracklets have D2 < D2,Crit .

Figure7 shows the cumulative distribution of D2 for the NEOs generated within the data sets of Table2. The data sets differ at small D2, introducing differing biases. The discov- ery data sets (MPCD,11, MPCD,17) have the smallest fraction of tracklets in the low D2 range and clearly display the ef- Figure 8. Cumulative histogram of maximum, mean and minimum fects of imposing a D2,Crit -cut-off on objects submitted to the digest2 score per object for NEOs and their orbital subclasses from NEOCP. Sim data set. Only 0.4% of NEOs never reach D > 65. The data sets containing all submitted tracklets (MPCA,11) or simulated tracklets (Granvik, LSST, and Sim) have in- Figure8 shows the cumulative histograms of the minimum, creased ratios of low-scoring NEOs because (a) they are not mean and maximum D2 per object from the Sim data set, and subject to the D2,Crit threshold placed on objects sent to the the differences in D2 seen between the different orbit classes. NEOCP, and (b) they contain objects observed repeatedly. NEOs can, at times, have low scores: 53% of NEOs have The largest fraction of low scoring tracklets comes from the D2 < 65 at some point while observable. But in general, Sim data set, which may be a consequence of the long-term NEOs (and their subclasses) achieve high D2 in almost all simulation window (10-years) and our optimistic nightly ca- cases: 94% of NEOs reach D2 = 100 (Table3). This ratio is dence over the entire visible night sky, allowing it to contain objects with large synodic periods, and objects that only oc- 14 casionally have D2 > D2,Crit . The Sim data set has a wide Potentially Hazardous Asteroids have MOID ≤ 0.05au and H ≥ 22. 15 Minimum Orbit Intersection Distance with the Earth. range of NEOs: 28% of all visible tracklets had D2 < 65 at 10 KEYSETAL. highest for objects that come close to the Earth or the Sun ( Table 4. Top: Error matrix for digest2 when used as a classifier, i.e. Aten, Apollo and low-MOID classes). The ratio is smallest when the digest2 score, D2, is compared to a critical value D2,Crit . Bottom: Definition of additional useful metrics. in the case of Amors, only 87% of which ever reach D2 = 100, because Amors remain distant and often mimic Main-belt motion when near aphelion. Only 0.4% of NEOs never reach NEO Non-NEO

D > 65 while visible. D2 >= D2,Crit True Positives, TP False Positives, FP

D2 < D2,Crit False Negatives, FN True Negatives, TN Table 3. Fraction of NEOs that achieved a given D2 in the Sim data set. False Positive Rate, FPR = FP/(FP + TN)

Orbit type min D2 > 65 max D2 < 65 max D2 = 100 False Negative Rate, FNR = FN/(FN + TP) (%) (%) (%) Precision, PRE = TP/(TP + FP) NEO 46.7 0.4 93.9 Accuracy, ACC = (TP + TN)/(TP + TN + FP + FN) PHA 22.8 0.4 99.2 Aten 65.9 0.2 99.6 Apollo 46.4 0.2 99.5 Amor 43.8 0.6 86.4 measure of the purity of the tracklets that will end-up on the Low-MOID 59.9 0.1 99.5 NEOCP (i.e. what fraction of the tracklets on the NEOCP will actually be NEOs). In Figure 10 we plot the False Positive Rate, False Nega- tive Rate, Precision, and Accuracy as functions of the critical To understand the NEOs with low D2, in Figure9 we plot the rate-of-motion and sky-plane location (in ecliptic coordi- digest2 score, D2,Crit . We do this for both real (MPCD,11, nates centered at opposition ) of each tracklet from the Sim MPCD,17 and MPCA,17) and synthetic (LSST) data sets. data set. There are two regions in the morning and evening These plots show that the discovery data sets (MPCD,11 and MPCD,17) both display “kinks” in the various performance sky where NEOs tend to have lower D2. NEOs in these re- gions are moving very slowly and mimic the Main-belt rate. metrics at the values of D2,Crit used at the time of submis- These regions are coincident with so-called “sweet-spots” at sion. Above the threshold, most NEOs are followed-up and low solar elongations, that are the only regions of the sky in orbits computed. However, NEOs below the threshold at the which many NEOs become observable (e.g. Stokes & Yeo- time of first observation are less likely to be immediately mans 2003; Chesley & Spahr 2004; Boattini et al. 2007). followed-up. In contrast, no selection effects are imposed on There is also an area near opposition where low digest scores either the MPCA,17 or LSST data sets, hence no kinks appear. are possible for NEOs moving with rates of motion similar We find that the false negative rate is the largest in to those of MBAs. Interestingly, if the object moves even the MPCA,17 and LSST data sets, essentially because slower, e.g. below 0.1 degree per day, its score is very high. tracklets with D2 < D2,crit are absent from the other All fast moving objects (rates above ∼ 0.8 degrees/day), and (MPCD,11&MPCD,17) data-sets. We note that the value of D2,Crit = 65 was chosen with the all objects at large observed ecliptic latitudes, have D2 = 100. aim of generating approximately half of the objects on the 4.3. Accuracy, Precision and the NEOCP NEOCP being NEOs. In 2010, the D2,Crit was lowered to D = 50 based on the request of the community and avail- To understand how accurate D is when used as an NEO 2,Crit 2 ability of more follow-up and discovery assets. After a year, classifier, we can calculate the value of D for tracklets 2 due to the lack of follow-up of the low-scoring NEO can- from a population of known objects (both NEOs and non- didates, MPC increased D back to D = 65 in mid- NEOs). We can then compare D to an imposed critical value 2,Crit 2,Crit 2 2012. It is clear from both the curves in Figure 10 and by D , and calculate for the population the rate of “True 2,Crit Vereš et al.(2018) that this choice was successful in generat- Positives”(TP), “False Positives” (FP), “False Negatives” ing the approximate desired level of precision. If members of (FN), and “True Negatives” (TN). Repeating this gives the the community wish to advocate for changes to the adopted values of these quantities as a function of D . We have 2,Crit value of D = 65, they should weigh-up the pros and cons summarized these quantities (and some additional metrics) 2,Crit of such a change: Increasing the value of D will cause in Table4. 2,Crit the false positive rate to drop (cutting down on the number of As described in Section4, unknown tracklets with D > 2 non-NEOs “unnecessarily” followed-up), but the false nega- D are submitted to the NEOCP, increasing the likelihood 2,Crit tive rate will rise (hence losing NEOs). of follow-up observations being obtained and hence of the object being confirmed as real. The precision, PRE, is a THE digest2 NEOCLASSIFICATION CODE 11

Figure 9. digest2 score for all of the NEOs from the Sim data set in opposition-centered ecliptic coordinates per-bin mean digest2. digest2 is generally smaller at low solar elongation. domly. Therefore, even though the admissible region is the same, the sampling of available orbits could hit different pop- ulation bins during an independent instance of the program. We demonstrate an extreme example of the D2 variation us- ing a real NEO candidate (P10Gj15) that was observed on January 17, 2018 as a 3-detection tracklet. The tracklet had D2 = 66 and therefore it was posted to the NEOCP. When we re-ran digest2 1000-times on the tracket, the distribution of D2 in the left-panel of Figure 11 shows that on many occa- sions the D2 value was below 65. To understand this result, we show two specific runs, one leading to D2 = 66 and one to D2 = 60 in the center of Fig- ure 11, demonstrating that the sampled orbits inhabit almost identical regions of phase space. However, counting the bins hit by generated variant orbits in the two runs (illustrated in Figure 10. Top Left: MPCD,11, All discovery tracklets from 2011; the right-hand side of Figure 11), we see that different pop- Top Right: MPCD,17, All discovery tracklets from 2017; Bottom ulation bins were hit, giving different scores. In the case Left: MPC , All tracklets from January 2017. Bottom Right: A,17 of P10G j15, further follow-up observations allowed the or- LSST, All tracklets from LSST sim. Each panel plots the False- Positive-Rate (FPR, blue), the False-Negative-Rate (FNR, orange), bit determination of the object that became announced as the Precision (Green), and the Accuracy (red). The precision is 2018BE1 - a Hungaria-class asteroid. a measure of the purity of the tracklets that will end-up on the We repeated this analysis for 1000 randomly selected NEOCP. The “kink” that is particularly obvious in the “Precision” tracklets from the Granvik NEO data set, running the digest2 measure for MPCD,17 is driven by the D2,Crit = 65 NEOCP threshold. code 100-times for each. We found that 82% of the track- lets had no change in the integer value of D2. In particular, 4.4. Nuances of Practical digest2 Usage tracklets with D2 ∼ 0 or D2 ∼ 100 had almost no variation in D There are a number of practical details relating to the al- 2. Only a small fraction of tracklets, 0.7%, had a variation ∆D > D gorithmic design of digest2 that should be considered when 2 3. Most of the varying 2-tracklets were in the range < D < using the digest2 code in practice. 40 2 60, the region where both NEO and Main-Belt populations seem to be probable for a given velocity vector. 4.4.1. Effects of Random-Choice of α The small variation is caused by the binned-population The digest2 code uses a pseudo-Monte Carlo method to model and the algorithmic design. Future versions of the generate a range of variant orbits (see AppendixA). By de- code should reduce/eliminate this effect. fault, the pseudo random number generator is seeded ran- 12 KEYSETAL.

Figure 11. Left: One thousand runs of digest2 on a single Pan-STARRS1 tracklet P10Gj15, resulting in a range of ’raw’ and ’nid’ NEO scores due to the random selection of α. This is a particularly extreme example of the variation that is seen. Center: Variant orbits generated in two independent runs of digest2 (which resulted in different D2 values: Red D2 = 60 and black D2 = 66) plotted in perihelion distance (q) and absolute magnitude (H). Right: Population bins populated by the variant orbits from the center panel. The different runs hit different bins, causing skews in the calculated score.

We emphasize that if the user wishes to suppress these vari- ations, the keyword repeatable can be added to the configura- tion file. The random angle α is then reseeded with a constant value for each tracklet, yielding repeatable scores in indepen- dent runs.

4.4.2. Effects of Observational Uncertainty As illustrated in Section 3.1.1, “dithered” tracklets are con- structed from two end-points or two generated points of the tracklet. The dithering itself is governed by the expected as- trometric uncertainty. The default astrometric uncertainty used by digest2 is 1.0 arcsecond. However, in our work and at the MPC, astrometric uncertainties are assigned in the digest2 configuration file, using the long-term average for each observatory code (Table6, AppendixD). To demon- Figure 12. digest2 score computed for a Pan-STARRS1 tracklet strate the effect of changing the assumed uncertainty on a P10Gj15, assuming different astrometric uncertainty for each run. single tracklet, we again chose the Pan-STARRS tracklet The vertical line shows the assumed Pan-STARRS1 uncertainty. P10G j15. Figure 12 shows how D2 depends on the assumed The variation in score is driven by the same effect demonstrated uncertainty. The variation in score is driven by the same ef- in Figure 11: varying the uncertainty changes the population bins fect demonstrated in Section 4.4.1 (Figure 11): varying the used to calculate the tracklet’s score. uncertainty changes the population bins included in the track- let score calculation. In the example illustrated, when the as- where overestimation (underestimation) lead to ∆D ≈ −5 trometric uncertainty is overestimated, P10G j15 D2 leads to 2 more variant orbits that hit the Main-Belt bins. ( ∆D2 ≈ +1.0). D2 values near zero and 100 do not show To study the significance of the assumed astrometric uncer- any variation. Overall there was no change for 90% of the tainties for a large data set, we selected 30,000 NEOs from "underestimated" and 78% of the "overestimated" tracklets. the Granvik data set, generated two-detection tracklets with 4.4.3. Great Circle Departure 0.2" astrometric errors and computed D2 using three different assumed astrometric uncertainties: underestimated (0.05"), As described in Section 3.1.1, the digest2 algorithm uses a nominal (0.2") and overestimated (1.0"). Note, that the anal- pair of synthetic detections derived from the set of observed ysis was undertaken with the digest2 keyword “repeatable” positions. In a typical short arc tracklet spanning ∼ 1hour, the set to avoid variation due to angle α randomness. motion is mostly linear. However, when the object is close to When the astrometric uncertainty is overestimated by 0.8" the Earth, the effect of diurnal parallax for the topocentric (underestimated by 0.15"), the value of D2 varies by an observer can cause discernible curvature that is seen as a de- amount ∆D2 ≈ −1 ( ∆D2 ≈ +0.2). This effect is partic- viation from the great circle, even within one hour. Using the ularly obvious for intermediate values of D2 (20 to 80), keyword "rms" will cause the digest2 code to output the root- THE digest2 NEOCLASSIFICATION CODE 13

Figure 13. D2 score of close-approaching NEOs derived for 4-detection tracklets. Correlations between great-circle-residual rms, geocentric distance and rate of motion are depicted. Nearby objects exhibit large rms and high rates-of-motion, but also always have D2 = 100. Large points are used to emphasize those NEOs with low D2. There are no fast-moving, nearby NEOs or NEOs with non-linear motion, that have low digest score. mean-square of the great circle residuals for the positions re- Trojan discovered so far is 2010 TK7(Connors et al. 2011; ported in a tracklet (if the tracklet has ≥ 3 detections). If the Mainzer et al. 2012). We selected a small group of known rms score is within the expected astrometric uncertainties, quasi-satellites or co-orbitals17, generated daily ephemerides then, linear motion is a good approximation for the digest2 from 2000 until 2020, created 20-minute tracklets and sim- method. A large rms can be due to either bad astrometry, or ulated sky-plane visibility down to +22.5 V − band magni- to diurnal parallax. tude. Their sky-plane motion and digest2 score are shown in To test the effect of great circle deviations we selected Figure 14. The analyzed co-orbitals typically display large 16 close approach events from the CNEOS web site for as- valuess of D2, unless they are in the low-scoring “sweet- teroids that approached the Earth within 0.2au during 2006- spots”. The overall distribution of digest2 scores is similar 2018. We generated 16,800 events for 11,828 NEOs. We to MPCA,17 and Granvik from Figure7 in Section 4.2.3. The generated 4-detection tracklets spanning 1 hour for each only known Earth Trojan 2010 TK7 has a digest2 value os- event. We selected the Pan-STARRS1 F51 observatory code cillating between 93 and 100, and 40% of its tracklets had as the topocentric position and “smeared” the generated as- DD = 100. trometry by an expected astrometric uncertainty of 0.2 arc- second. Only tracklets > 60 degrees from the Sun were con- NEOs at low Solar elongations sidered. 4.6. Figure 13 illustrates the rate of motion, the rms of the Most of our analyses were focused on NEOs observed in great-circle-residuals, and the geocentric distance of each favorable locations of the sky within 100 degrees of the op- tracklet. As expected, the rms increases with decreasing position (e.g. Figure9). In Section 4.2.4 we identified re- geocentric distance. In addition, the correlation between gions near the ecliptic roughly 100 to 60 degrees from the rate of motion and rms, as well as between rate of motion opposition where the mean digest2 score is relatively low. and geocentric distance is obvious. Low scoring NEOs had However, some orbit types, such as Atens or Atiras, rarely or rms < 0.2”, their rate of motion was consistent with the rate never cross the opposition region. Searches close to the Sun of Main-belt asteroids and were distant at the same time. are required to find these objects. Ground-based observations near the Sun are limited by large airmass and associated tar- get brightness losses, as well as limited observing time at 4.5. Earth quasi-satellites, co-orbitals and Trojans dawn or dusk. Low Solar elongation observations are ideal Although the Moon is the only known natural satellite of for space-based observatories. Figure 15 shows the mean di- the Earth, temporarily captured NEOs, NEOs in 1:1 mean- gest2 score for the Sim data set in the Sun-centered ecliptic motion resonance with the Earth, Earth Trojans or proposed coordinates. Interestingly, closer to the Sun digest2 is al- minimoons(Granvik et al. 2012; Bolin et al. 2014) can follow most always above 65 and Atiras have particularly very large geocentric orbits for days or months. (469219) 2016 HO3 D2 values. We demonstrated that digest2 score can identify is the closest and most stable Earth’s quasi-satellite (de la NEOs in low-solar elongations. Fuente Marcos & de la Fuente Marcos 2016). The only Earth

17 (3753) Cruithne, (164207), (277810), (419624), (469219), 2002 AA29, 16 https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/ 2006 RH120, 2010 TK7 14 KEYSETAL.

Figure 14. digest2 score for known Earth quasi-satellites and their sky-plane motion in ecliptic coordinates centered at the opposition. digest2 score is mostly large. Low digest2 scores corresponds to the “sweet-spots” areas. Pattern of the horseshoe orbits is apparent at low solar elongations.

Figure 15. digest2 score for all of the NEOs, Atiras and Atens from the Sim data set in Sun-centered ecliptic coordinates per-bin mean digest2. digest2 is generally large at low solar elongation. Yellow point in the center represents the Sun.

4.7. Interstellar Objects and digest2 Figure 16 shows the D2, rate of motion and magnitude of The interstellar object (ISO) 1I/’Oumuamua (Bacci et al. all reported 1I/’Oumuamua tracklets. From the time of dis- 2017) was discovered by the Pan-STARRS NEO survey and covery to November 12, 2017, 1I/’Oumuamua had D2 = 100 at all times, and in addition, 1I/’Oumuamua had D2 = 100 its first tracklet was reported to the NEOCP as a D2 = 100 tracklet. Subsequent follow-up quickly revealed its hyper- for the entire time it was visible to the main NEO surveys < bolic orbit. However, without a large NEO digest2 score, it (V ∼ 22). would never have appeared on the NEOCP or been followed- 5. DISCUSSION up. As mentioned earlier, one of the key constraints of di- We have described the algorithm underlying the digest2 gest2 are orbits bound to the Sun. Previous work (Engelhardt code, as well as its usage to calculate the score of a short-arc et al. 2017) showed that the NEO digest2 score could be used tracklet with respect to a given orbit class. We focused on the to identify ISOs, demonstrating that 2/3 of ISOs in a simu- NEO digest2 score, D2, as used by the Minor Planet Center lated Pan-STARRS survey achieved D > 90 at some time 2 (MPC) to classify the likelihood that submitted sets of detec- while visible. tions are NEOs. We showed that D2 changes for each object as it moves across the sky and its brightness and rate of mo- THE digest2 NEOCLASSIFICATION CODE 15

near extremes (D2 = 0 and D2 = 100). The MPC uses digest2 without the "repeatable" parameter to avoid bias.

5.1. Future directions As we move into an era of large surveys that can ob- tain huge volumes of high-precision observations and utilize highly-precise stellar catalogues, it is clear that the digest2 code must evolve. Future developments to the code will in- clude:

• It will be possible to characterize observational uncer- tainties on a per-observation basis, as provided for in the ADES format18. • A python wrapper and API to provide simplified usage. • A new NEO population model, such as the high- fidelity Granvik et al.(2018) model, will be required. Catalog of known orbits used for unknown population reduction would be generated more frequently. • The discrete population bins (in q,e,i,H) need to be re- placed with a smooth 4-dimensional function, perhaps also incorporating additional orbital elements to allow improved discrimination of (e.g.) Hildas and Jupiter Trojans. • Replacing the synthetic two-detection approach with a robust statistical treatment of all submitted detec- tions, allowing for a significantly improved handling Figure 16. digest2 score, mean V-band magnitude and rate of motion of 1I/’Oumuamua tracklets. Dashed vertical lines display of NEOs that exhibit non-linear motion during close- epochs when object was observed by Hubble Space Telescope. approach. 1I/’Oumuamua has a high digest2 score for the entire time it was • Further tests and improvements of the code are needed visible to surveys (V < 22). ∼ for space-based NEO surveys, such the proposed NEOCam mission (Mainzer et al. 2015). tion vary. For NEOs, the maximum D2 reaches the extreme • astorb value of D2 = 100 for more than 93% of NEOs, and over 99% Replacing the known orbit catalog and its or- of NEOs have D2,crit > 65 at some point while visible. Thus, bit quality metric (Muinonen & Bowell 1993) with the 19 the vast majority of NEOs have sufficiently high D2 to allow MPC’s orbit catalog and orbit uncertainty parame- 20 them to be posted to the NEOCP and be rapidly followed-up ter . by observers around the world. While the digest2 code identifies short-arc NEOs correctly We emphasize that digest2 constitutes an evolving code- in the vast majority of cases, there are a small number of base and that we welcome reports from the community of 21 cases when D2 is below the critical threshold, currently set any bugs found, or of suggestions for future directions . to D2,crit > 65. We identify the two locations on the sky, on the ecliptic and at low solar elongations, where the mean D 2 18 https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/info/ADES. is significantly lower than elsewhere on the sky. This is due html to the observing geometry and rates of motion of the objects, 19 https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/MPCORB.html that cause them to be confused with Main-Belt objects. 20 https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/info/UValue. We also demonstrate that without the "repeatable" parame- html 21 At the time of submission, the digest2 team are currently diagnosing the ter the digest2 code can generate varying output for the same cause of a rare output-formatting error that appears to afflict approximately tracklet due to its random selection of variant orbits. How- 1 in every 50,000 evaluation attempts when running digest2 in a multi-core ever, the variation in D2 is small and does not affect scores environment. We anticipate that the solution of this issue will lead to a future version release. 16 KEYSETAL.

We are grateful to Rob McNaught for his insights regard- Society of Kansas City, specializing in the tracking of Near- ing the history of the PANGLOSScode, and for his many clar- Earth Objects (NEOs). Her skill and reliability with NEO ifications regarding the historical development of ranging. astrometry caught the attention of the Minor Planet Center MJH and MJP gratefully acknowledge NASA grants (MPC), and that led to a position as an astronomer and soft- NNX12AE89G, NNX16AD69G, and NNX17AG87G, as ware developer for the MPC. During her tenure at the MPC, well as support from the Smithsonian 2015-2017 Scholarly Sonia was the lead developer of the digest2 software and was Studies programs. DJA acknowledges the N. Ireland Dept. the point-of-contact for the many people in the NEO com- for Communities support at Armagh. munity that utilized it for over a decade. We deeply regret We are saddened to report that during the course of the Sonia’s passing, and we hope that we have completed this work on this manuscript, lead author Sonia Keys died on 13 manuscript in a manner she would have approved of. We August 2018 at the age of 57, after a long struggle with can- hope this publication and note will serve as a small token of cer. Sonia worked as a commercial software developer from the esteem in which we held her. Sonia was the conscience 1983 to 2001 and then began working with the Astronomical of the MPC. Her clarity of thought, her willingness to ask difficult questions, and her tenacity will be sorely missed.

APPENDIX

A. VARIANT ORBITS

Figure 17. Top: Vector algebra for solving state vectors according to AppendixA. Ei and Ai are the positions of the Earth and the asteroid at times ti. Bottom: Because only the transverse component of the velocity vector is visible to the observer, the true velocity vector could be ∗ ~ in the dotted area between A2 and A2 , that represents all possible solutions for bound orbits. ∆i represent topocentric and ~ri the heliocentric vectors of the object and R~i the heliocentric vectors of the observer at time ti. ~s is directed along the velocity vector of the object.

In the following algorithmic description, all line references relate to Algorithm1 of Section3. The input file for the digest2 program contains astrometry of short-arc tracklets, such as those illustrated in AppendixF. The file can contain one or many tracklets (Line1). After the input data are loaded, binned population model is loaded into memory as well (Line2, Section 3.3). Each tracklet is subsequently treated individually (Line3): THE digest2 NEOCLASSIFICATION CODE 17

Two observations of an arc are insufficient for a determination of its orbit, or when the observation arc is too short. However, even very short arcs with few observations can be used to derive a range of possible orbits and assess the probability of the asteroid being in a certain region of the Solar system. Because each tracklet has two or more detections (N), as described in Section 3.1, two detections either selected (N = 2) or generated (N > 2).

The two observables, or detections, A1 and A2 of the same object (Line4), are defined by Ati =[αi,δi,Vi], where αi is the right ascension, δi the declination, Vi is the apparent magnitude at the time of observation ti. Because the tracklet consists of N ≥ 2 data points with unique photometry, either due to photometric errors or rotation of the object, the mean tracklet magnitude V1 is computed (line5) in the Johnson-Cousins V-band photometric system. The transfor- mation to V-band is simple (Vereš et al. 2018), the correction is −0.8 if the reported band was B, or +0.4 for other bands, except of V, where no correction is applied. If no photometry is provided, V1 = 21 is assumed as a typical magnitude limit of the current asteroid surveys. We can easily transform the observation [αi,δi] to its topocentric cartesian unit vector (Figure 17) d~i = [xi,yi,zi]:

(xi,yi,zi) = (cosαi cosδi, sinαi cosδi, sinδi) (A1) For further analysis, we will need to transform unit vectors from equatorial to ecliptic coordinate system (See Figure 17):

~ T ~ di = R · di (A2) where R is the rotation matrix defined by obliquity of the ecliptic :   1 0 0   R = 0 cos sin (A3)   0 −sin cos To derive the position state vector ~r, we have to assume a topocentric distance D to the asteroid. In line8 of Algorithm1, Sun- observer vectors (labeled R~1,R~2 in Figure 17) in ecliptic Cartesian coordinates are computed by local sidereal time and observer site parallax constants. Observer’s topocentric positions are loaded from MPC-managed list of observatory codes22. Also the ~ ~ observer-object unit vectors d1,d2 are computed in ecliptic Cartesian coordinates. ~ ~ Then, the topocentric vector to the first observation, ∆1, will be a scalar multiple of D and the unit vector d1. D is one of the values selected recursively (AppendixC) between the minimum (0.05 au) and maximum (100 au) distances within the allowed admissible region:

~ ~ ∆1 = Dd1 (A4)

Knowing the position vectors of the observer with respect to the Sun at the time of the two observations (R1 and R2) in ecliptic coordinates, we can easily derive the heliocentric state vector r~1 as:

~ r~1 = R~1 + ∆1 (A5) After the position vectors are derived, the algorithm continues in investigation of the velocity vectors. The observed motion of the asteroid on the celestial sphere is a projection of the actual velocity vector to the tangent plane. While we do not know the angle between the tangent plane and the velocity vector v~1, we can make progress by computing the possible ranges of angles (Figure 17 - bottom) under the assumption that the object is bound to the Sun. At a given distance from the Sun, r1, an orbit is bound if its specific orbital energy  < 0. We will find the angles of the v~1 for the parabolic orbits from:

v2 U  = 1 − = 0 (A6) 2 r1 where U = k2 is the Gaussian gravitational constant squared23. ~ ~ To find v~1 one has to solve triangle E2,A1,A2 on figure 17. The velocity vector will be derived as v~1 = (∆2 − ∆21)/(t2 −t1).

22 https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/info/ObservatoryCodes.html 23 k = 0.01720209895au3/2 day−1 (solar mass)−1/2 18 KEYSETAL.

~ The angle θ (Figure 17 - bottom) can be derived by computing the intermediate vector ∆21 from vector difference of r~1 and R~2 ~ ~ and the dot product of known unit vector d2 and derived ∆21:

~ ∆21 = r~1 − R~2 ∆~ · d~ (A7) cosθ = 21 2 |∆21||1|

Then, by using the cosine rule, substituting v1 = s1/(t2 −t1) and using equation (A6), we can derive the length of the vector ∆2 as follows. Line9 of Algorithm1 involves solving a quadratic that gives two values for α corresponding to state vectors ~s and s~∗ that represent parabolic orbits:

2 2 2 ∆21 + ∆2 − s1 − 2∆21∆2 cosθ = 0 2 ! (A8) 2 2 U(t2 −t1) ∆2 − 2∆2∆21 cosθ + ∆21 − 2 = 0 r1

Equation (A8) has two roots for ∆2 after doing simple substitution (A, B, C) solving:

U(t −t )2 (A,B,C) = (1, −2∆ cosθ, ∆ 2 − 2 2 1 ) 2 21 r √ 1 (A9) −B ± B2 − 4AC ∆ = 2 2A

Two roots of ∆2 lead to the extreme solutions of angles at which the vector v1 of an asteroid is equal to escape velocity: Based on figure 17 and cosine rules and law of sines:

q 2 2 s1 = ∆2 + ∆21 − 2∆21∆2 cosθ s 2 + ∆ 2 − ∆ 2 cosα = 1 21 2 2s1∆21 ∆ sinθ (A10) sinα = 2 s1  sinα  α = arctan cosα

~ Having the topocentric (r~1) and heliocentric ( ∆1) distance, the mean V-band magnitude V1 and geometry (α), we are now able to compute the object’s absolute magnitude H (Line 10) of Algorithm1 by equation:

H = V1 − 5log(∆1r1) + f (Φ1,G) (A11) ~ where the phase angle Φ1 is the angle between ∆1 and r~1 and G is the slope parameter. The form of the phase function f (Φ,G) is based on Bowell et al.(1989) and G = 0.15 is assumed.

In the next step (Line 11) of Algorithm1, the algorithm picks angles randomly for a selected topocentric distance D in a range between the two extremes of α that represent a bound elliptical orbit. With any valid α and D, we can derive the velocity vector, again by using the rule of sines (Figure 17 - bottom):

∆ sinα ∆ = 21 (A12) 2 sin(π − α − θ) THE digest2 NEOCLASSIFICATION CODE 19

The heliocentric velocity vector ~v in ecliptic coordinates is ∆ d~ − ∆~ ~v = 2 2 21 (A13) t2 −t1

Having r~1, ~v at a given epoch, we have the orbit defined through its state vector (Line 12 of Algorithm1) which is easy to convert into a set of Keplerian elements (Line 13 of Algorithm1).

The entire procedure is repeated for a range of assumed distances, D j that lead to set of unique position vectors, r~j, and velocity vectors, v~j. Example of variant orbits generated by digest2 in a phase space of α and ∆1 is shown in Figure 18.

Figure 18. Grid of bound variant orbits generated by digest2 for an NEO (left), Main Belt (center) and Centaur (right) tracklet. The asterisks depict the true position.

B. digest2 SOFTWARE B.1. Detailed Historical Evolution In Section 2.1 we provided a brief outline of the historical development of the digest2 algorithm. In Table5 of this appendix, we provide the interested reader with a more detailed, chronologically-ordered description of the key changes made to the digest2 code. B.2. Software Availability and Usage The digest2 source code and the documentation is freely available at https://bitbucket.org/mpcdev/digest2/ overview. The download section contains a zip archive of digest2 and the population model tar achive d2model. The synthetic solar system model binning and reduction source code MUK is freely available at https://bitbucket. org/mpcdev/d2model/src/master/muk.c. The digest2 code can be executed directly after its compilation using the supplied input observation file (sample.obs) and configuration file (MPC.config) as follows: digest2 -c MPC.config sample.obs Further detailed instructions for the operation of digest2 can be found in https://bitbucket.org/mpcdev/ digest2/src/master/OPERATION.md.

C. BINARY SEARCH ALGORITHM FOR POPULATION BINS The initial algorithm (version 0.1) for constructing class scores was as in Algorithm2. On line5 the function Interesting tests if candidate elements are in the class of interest. The single class of interest defined in digest2 versions-0.1 and -0.2 corresponded to the Minor Planet Center’s definition of “interesting” which included not just NEOs (q < 1.3) but also high eccentricity (e > 0.5) and high inclination (i > 40) orbits which would also lead to a discovery MPEC. The current code uses the classes described in Table8 of AppendixD. Version-0.2 contained an improved score formula. The goal of the new score formula was to change the computation of the variables neo and mb (Algorithm2 lines6 and8) to be more like, neo = sum of bin populations over all represented NEO bins (C14) mb = sum of bin populations over all represented non-NEO bins, 20 KEYSETAL.

Table 5. Significant Changes and Versions of Digest2. Archived (and operational) code for the majority of the versions listed in this table are available in https://bitbucket.org/mpcdev/digest2/src/master/archive/.

Date Version Description

pre-2002 0.0223 Original FORTRAN 77 code (“223.f”) built on PANGLOSS Aug 2005 0.1 MIT-style license, catalog-reduced model. Sep 2005 0.2 Bin search algorithm (App.C) Feb 2010 0.3 Pan-STARRS S3M model, multiple orbit classes, improved scoring (§ 3.3). Parallelized across multiple CPU cores. Feb 2010 0.4 Supported space-based observations. Feb 2010 0.5 Great circle RMS output. Stand-alone GCR utility. Mar 2010 0.6 Improved stand-alone GCR utility. Nov 2010 0.7 Orbit classes H18, H22, bug fixes. Apr 2011 0.8 More flexible output, new config options. Removed stand-alone GCR utility, bug fixes. Apr 2011 0.9 Bug fixes. Apr 2011 0.10 Bug fixes. May 2011 0.11 Endpoint synthesis (§ 3.1). Observational Error (§ 4.4.2). May 2012 0.12 Bug fixes. Jun 2012 0.13 Bug fixes. Jan 2013 0.14 Bug fixes. Feb 2014 0.15 Allow more obscodes. Feb 2015 0.16 Command line option to limit parallelism. Jun 2015 0.17 CSV model, bug fixes. Jun 2015 0.18 Minor usability improvements. Bug fixes. Aug 2017 0.19 Bug fixes, including a serious uninitialized data problem.

Algorithm 2: digest2 scoring version 0.1

1 ... 2 for distance D ← .025 AU to 7 by .025 do ◦ 3 for α ← α1 to α2 by 2 do 4 Look-up BinPopn(a,e,i,H) 5 if Interesting(a,e,i) then 6 neo += BinPopn 7 else 8 mb += BinPopn 9 score ← 100 ∗ neo/(neo + mb) where a best effort is made to locate all the population bins represented by the input arc. The reasons for this change ultimately stem from a desire to (a) avoid double-counting population bins, and (b) avoid omitting population bins due to the use of overly large distance and/or angle step-sizes in Algorithm2. Per-class binning enables enhancements to the bin tagging and scoring algorithms. In the current version of digest2, separate bin tags are accumulated per class. Further, for each class, two sets of tags are accumulated per class. An in-class tag is set for a bin when a candidate orbit meets the class definition. A separate out-of-class tag is set otherwise. Two population sums are then computed for each class, a sum of bin populations with in-class tags and sum of bin populations with out-of-class tags. The THE digest2 NEOCLASSIFICATION CODE 21

first represents the sum of class bin populations where a candidate orbit of class was found. The second represents the sum of out-of-class bin populations where a candidate orbit out of class was found. Computations at a single distance follow algorithm1 steps8 through 10, but then call a recursive function to subdivide the angle space between α1 and α2. At each call, a state vector and then orbital elements are computed, but then rather than accessing the indicated bin population, the corresponding tag is simply checked (in the distance-specific tags). If the tag was already set, subdivision ends and the recursive function returns. If the tag was not set, then the angle space is subdivided further and the recursive function is called for each subdivision. The distance, D, is subdivided similarly with a separate recursive function. On each call, computations are performed for a single distance as just described, then the distance-specific tags are checked. If all bins tagged at that distance had previously been tagged in the overall result, the recursive function simply returns. If new bins were tagged, they are merged into the overall result, the distance space is subdivided further, and the recursive (distance) function is called for each subdivision. After all subdivision functions return, the formulas above for neo and mb are computed as described in Algorithm3.

Algorithm 3: Tag accumulation

1 for each tag of overall tags do 2 if tag set then 3 if interesting bin then 4 neo ← neo + BinPop(a,e,i,H) 5 if non-interesting bin then 6 mb ← mb + BinPop(a,e,i,H)

D. TABULATED VALUES AND SETTINGS FOR digest2 In Table6 we list the assumed astrometric uncertainties adopted in the latest version of the digest2 code. The values are set in the file MPC.CONFIG and can be altered by the user. digest2 is configurable with keywords that allow control of the output and setup of some input variables. The keywords are set in the same file (MPC.config) as the astrometric uncertainties (Table6). The available keywords are described in Table7. The orbit classes used by digest2 are defined by the orbital elements and absolute magnitudes listed in Table8.

E. POPULATION BINS In Figure 19 we illustrate the population model used by digest2 (see Section 3.3 above for further description).

Table 6. Astrometric uncertainties currently used by digest2 by the MPC and digest2 code, based on long-term statisticsa.

observatory astrometric observatory astrometric code uncertainty code uncertainty 106 0.4" D29 0.5" 291 0.4" E12 0.5" 568 0.1" F51 0.2" 691 0.4" F52 0.2" 703 0.7" G96 0.3" 704 0.7" H15 0.5" A50 0.5" J75 0.4" C51 0.7 other 1.0"

ahttps://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/special/residuals.txt 22 KEYSETAL.

Figure 19. Binned population model for the Solar System (odd columns) and NEOs (even columns) as functions of perihelion distance (q), eccentricity (e), inclination (i) and absolute magnitude (H) for the full (“raw”) population model. Note the unequal bin sizes and limits of the Solar System model. THE digest2 NEOCLASSIFICATION CODE 23

Table 7. Keywords available in digest2.

keyword meaning headings show heading noheadings hide heading rms show residual RMS from linear motion along a great circle in arc-seconds norms do not show RMS raw show raw digest2 (Section 3.3.1) noid show noid digest2 (Section 3.3.2) repeatable random seed is defined and always the same (Section 4.4.1) random pseudo-random generation of α and resulting digest2 (Section 4.4.1) obserr fixed astrometric uncertainty set to a value in arc seconds poss show other non-zero resulting scores in addition to specified classes digest2 any orbit class(es) defined in Table8 e.g. NEO user defined astrometric uncertainty (arc seconds) per MPC observatory code e.g. obserrF51=0.2 default keywords: noid, rms, headings, N22, N18, NEO, Int, obserr=1.0

Table 8. Definitions of orbital classes in digest2.

orbit class abbreviation definition in keplerian elements and absolute magnitude MPC Interesting Int q < 1.3 || e >= 0.5 || i >= 40 || Q > 10 Near-Earth Object NEO q < 1.3 Large Near-Earth Object N18 q < 1.3 & H<18.5 Intermediate-size Near-Earth Objects N22 q < 1.3 & H<22.5 Mars-Crossers MC q < 1.67 & q >= 1.3 & Q > 1.58 Hungarias Hun a < 2 & a > 1.78 & e < 0.18 & i > 16 & i < 34 Phocaeas Pho a < 2.45 & a > 2.2 & q > 1.5 & i > 20 & i < 27 Inner Main Belt MB1 q > 1.67 & a < 2.5 & a > 2.1 & i < ((a - 2.1) / 0.4) * 10 + 7 Pallas family Pal a < 2.8 & a > 2.5 & e < 0.35 & i > 24 & i < 37 Hansas Han a < 2.72 & a > 2.55 & e < 0.25 & i > 20 & i < 23.5 Central Main Belt MB2 a < 2.8 & a > 2.5 & e < 0.45 & i < 20 Outer Main Belt MB3 e < 0.4 & a > 2.8 & a < 3.25 & i < ((a - 2.8) / 0.45) * 16 + 20 Hildas Hil a > 3.9 & a < 4.02 & i < 18 & e < 0.4 Jupiter Trojans JTr a > 5.05 & a < 5.35 & e < 0.22 & i < 38

Jupiter Family Comets JFC q > 1.3 & TJ > 2 & TJ < 3

TJ - Tisserand parameter with respect to Jupiter, a - semimajor axis (AU), e - eccentricity, i - inclination (deg) Q - aphelion distance (AU), q - perihelion distance (AU), H - absolute magnitude

F. EXAMPLE TRACKLET We provide an example of a tracklet taken from a a typical Hungaria-group asteroid. The data is presented in a standardized 80-column format24 - Minor Planet Packed Designation (K18B01E), Mode of Observation ("C" for CCD), Time of observations (Year, Month, Day), Right Ascension (Hours, Minutes, Seconds) and Declination (Degrees, Minutes, Seconds), Magnitude, Band ("w"), Catalog Code ("U"), Packed Reference ("∼2VXl") and Observatory Code ("F51").

K18B01E* C2018 01 17.42780 08 01 58.347+41 29 48.20 21.4 wU~2VXlF51

24 https://minorplanetcenter.net/iau/info/ObsFormat.html 24 KEYSETAL.

K18B01E C2018 01 17.43919 08 01 57.028+41 29 44.58 21.2 wU~2VXlF51 K18B01E C2018 01 17.46196 08 01 54.365+41 29 37.55 21.2 wU~2VXlF51

REFERENCES

Bacci, P., Maestripieri, M., Tesi, L., et al. 2017, Minor Planet Grav, T., Jedicke, R., Denneau, L., et al. 2011, PASP, 123, 423, Electronic Circulars, 2017 doi: 10.1086/659833 Boattini, A., Milani, A., Gronchi, G. F., Spahr, T., & Valsecchi, Jedicke, R. 1996, AJ, 111, 970, doi: 10.1086/117844 G. B. 2007, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 236, Near Earth Objects, Kubica, J., Denneau, L., Grav, T., et al. 2007, Icarus, 189, 151, 10.1016/j.icarus.2007.01.008 our Celestial Neighbors: Opportunity and Risk, ed. G. B. doi: Mainzer, A., Grav, T., Bauer, J., et al. 2015, AJ, 149, 172, Valsecchi, D. Vokrouhlický, & A. Milani, 291–300 doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/149/5/172 Bolin, B., Jedicke, R., Granvik, M., et al. 2014, Icarus, 241, 280, Mainzer, A., Grav, T., Masiero, J., et al. 2012, ApJL, 760, L12, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2014.05.026 doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L12 Bowell, E. 1989, in BAAS, Vol. 21, Bulletin of the American Marsden, B. G. 1985, AJ, 90, 1541, doi: 10.1086/113867 Astronomical Society, 969 —. 1991, AJ, 102, 1539, doi: 10.1086/115979 Bowell, E. 2018, The Asteroid Orbital Elements Database. McNaught, R. 1999, Journal of the British Astronomical ftp://ftp.lowell.edu/pub/elgb/astorb.html Association, 109, 294 Bowell, E., Hapke, B., Domingue, D., et al. 1989, in Asteroids II, Milani, A., Gronchi, G. F., Vitturi, M. D., & Kneževic,´ Z. 2004, ed. R. P. Binzel, T. Gehrels, & M. S. Matthews, 524–556 Celestial Mechanics and Dynamical Astronomy, 90, 57, Bowell, E., Muinonen, K., & Wasserman, L. H. 1994, in IAU doi: 10.1007/s10569-004-6593-5 Milani, A., & Kneževic,´ Z. 2005, Celestial Mechanics and Symposium, Vol. 160, Asteroids, Comets, Meteors 1993, ed. Dynamical Astronomy, 92, 1, A. Milani, M. di Martino, & A. Cellino, 477–481 doi: 10.1007/s10569-005-3314-7 Bowell, E., Skiff, B. A., & Wasserman, L. H. 1990, in Asteroids, Morrison, D., ed. 1992, The Spaceguard survey Comets, Meteors III, ed. C. I. Lagerkvist, H. Rickman, & B. A. Muinonen, K., & Bowell, E. 1993, Icarus, 104, 255, Lindblad, 19 doi: 10.1006/icar.1993.1100 Chesley, S. R. 2005, in IAU Colloq. 197: Dynamics of Populations Oszkiewicz, D., Muinonen, K., Virtanen, J., & Granvik, M. 2009, of Planetary Systems, ed. Z. Kneževic´ & A. Milani, 255–258 Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 44, 1897, Chesley, S. R., & Spahr, T. B. 2004, in Mitigation of Hazardous doi: 10.1111/j.1945-5100.2009.tb01999.x Comets and Asteroids, ed. M. J. S. Belton, T. H. Morgan, N. H. Spoto, F., Del Vigna, A., Milani, A., et al. 2018, ArXiv e-prints. Samarasinha, & D. K. Yeomans, 22 https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.04004 Connors, M., Wiegert, P., & Veillet, C. 2011, Nature, 475, 481, Stokes, G. H., & Yeomans, D. K. 2003, AGU Fall Meeting Abstracts, P51E doi: 10.1038/nature10233 Tholen, D. J., & Whiteley, R. J. 2000, in Bulletin of the American de la Fuente Marcos, C., & de la Fuente Marcos, R. 2016, Astronomical Society, Vol. 32, AAS/Division for Planetary MNRAS, 462, 3441, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1972 Sciences Meeting Abstracts #32, 1018 Engelhardt, T., Jedicke, R., Vereš, P., et al. 2017, AJ, 153, 133, Väisälä, Y. 1939, Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. A : Astron.-Optika Inst. doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa5c8a Univ. Turku Informo No. 1., 52, 2 Farnocchia, D., Chesley, S. R., & Micheli, M. 2015, Icarus, 258, Vereš, P., & Chesley, S. R. 2017, AJ, 154, 12, 18, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2015.05.032 doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa73d1 Granvik, M., Vaubaillon, J., & Jedicke, R. 2012, Icarus, 218, 262, Vereš, P., Payne, M. J., Holman, M. J., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 5, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.12.003 doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aac37d Granvik, M., Morbidelli, A., Jedicke, R., et al. 2018, Icarus, 312, Virtanen, J., Muinonen, K., & Bowell, E. 2001, Icarus, 154, 412, 10.1006/icar.2001.6592 181, doi: 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.04.018 doi: